Category: Mary

We must now consider concerning the first part of this prayer that in ancient times it was no small event when angels appeared to men; and that man should show…

We must now consider concerning the first part of this prayer that in ancient times it was no small event when angels appeared to men; and that man should show them reverence was especially praiseworthy. But that an angel should show reverence to a man was never heard of until the angel reverently greeted the Blessed Virgin saying: “Hail.”

“Hail Mary”

In ancient days, an angel would not show reverence to a man, but a man would deeply revere an angel. This is because angels are greater than men, and indeed in three ways. First, they are greater than men in dignity. This is because the angel is of a spiritual nature: “You make your angels spirits” (Ps 103:4). But, on the other hand, man is of a corruptible nature, for Abraham said, “I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes” (Gn 18:27). It was not fitting, therefore, that a spiritual and incorruptible creature should show reverence to one that is corruptible as is a man. Second, an angel is closer to God. The angel, indeed, is of the family of God, and as it were stands ever by Him: “Thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him” (Dn 7:10). Man, on the other hand, is rather a stranger and afar off from God because of sin: “I have gone afar off” (Ps 44:8). Therefore, it is fitting that man should reverence an angel who is an intimate and one of the household of the King.

Then, third, the angels far exceed men in the fullness of the splendor of divine grace. For angels participate in the highest degree in the divine light: “Is there any numbering of his soldiers? And upon whom shall not his light arise?” (Jb 25:3). Hence, the angels always appear among men clothed in light, but men on the contrary, although they partake somewhat of the light of grace, nevertheless do so in a much slighter degree and with a certain obscurity. It was, therefore, not fitting that an angel should show reverence to a man until it should come to pass that one would be found in human nature who exceeded the angels in these three points in which we have seen that they excel over men — and this was the Blessed Virgin. To show that she excelled the angels in these, the angel desired to show her reverence, and so he said: “Ave (Hail).”

“Full of Grace”

The Blessed Virgin was superior to any of the angels in the fullness of grace, and as an indication of this the angel showed reverence to her by saying: “Full of grace.” This is as if he said: “I show you reverence because you dost excel me in the fullness of grace.”

The grace of God is given for two chief purposes — namely, to do good and to avoid evil. The Blessed Virgin, then, received grace in the most perfect degree, because she had avoided every sin more than any other saint after Christ. Thus it is said: “You are fair, my beloved, and there is not a spot in you” (Song 4:7). For we know that to her was granted grace to overcome every kind of sin by Him whom she merited to conceive and bring forth, and He certainly was wholly without sin.

The plenitude of grace in Mary was such that its effects overflow upon all men. It is a great thing in a saint when he has grace to bring about the salvation of many, but it is exceedingly wonderful when grace is of such abundance as to be sufficient for the salvation of all men in the world, and this is true of Christ and of the Blessed Virgin. Thus “a thousand bucklers” — that is, remedies against dangers — “hang therefrom” (Song 4:4). Likewise, in every work of virtue one can have her as one’s helper.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) is honored as one the greatest theologians in the history of the Church. He is best known for his mammoth theological treatise, the Summa Theologiae . This short work was Thomas’ reflection on the Ave Maria and was translated by Joseph B. Collins (New York, 1939).

Is it legitimate to call Mary the “Mother of God”? Some Christians reject the title, saying it implies that God himself somehow has His origin in Mary. How could the…

Is it legitimate to call Mary the “Mother of God”? Some Christians reject the title, saying it implies that God himself somehow has His origin in Mary. How could the Creator of all things, who depends on no one else for His existence, possibly have a “mother”?

To understand why Christians have called Our Lady by this title since ancient times, we need to take a look at the controversy that arose when prayers addressed to her in this way first became popular 16 centuries ago.

Christ Is God and Man

From the very beginning of the Church, at the heart of the faith she has proclaimed lies the insistence that her founder, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is both God and Man. Jesus claimed for himself the very name of God revealed to Moses, “I AM” (Jn 8:58), and He assumed divine prerogatives such as the forgiveness of sin (see Lk 5:18-26).

The apostles testified to this reality. St. Thomas, for example, having known Jesus in His humanity, affirmed His divinity as well when he said to Him after His resurrection, “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20:28).

St. John wrote in his Gospel that Jesus was “the Word” who “became flesh and made his dwelling among us,” and that this “Word was God” (Jn 1:1,14). St. Paul taught that in Christ “dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily” (Col 2:9).

When early Christians pondered these and other declarations of the apostolic witness, they wondered: How exactly was Christ both human and divine?

Was He, as some claimed, simply God and only appeared to be human? Was He, as others speculated, a human to whom God attached himself in a special way, dwelling inside him? Or was He, as still others imagined, a kind of hybrid, partly human and partly divine?

Ultimately, in the light of Scripture and Tradition, and led by the Holy Spirit, the Church concluded that none of the above answers is correct. The Council of Ephesus, an ecumenical Church council held in the year 431, resolved the issue. (For more on ecumenical councils, see “What Are Ecumenical Councils?” Page 30.)

That council was provoked by a controversy over one particular question: Can we legitimately call Mary “the Mother of God”?

One prominent archbishop, named Nestorius, began to preach against the use of the Marian title Theotokos, which means literally “God-bearer,” or “the one who bore God.” Christ was two persons, he claimed — one human, one divine — joined together. Though Mary was the bearer (or mother) of the human person in Christ, she was not the mother of the divine Person (God the Son). So she could not rightly be called the Mother of God.

Two Natures in One Person

After examining this teaching, the Church pronounced Nestorius mistaken. Christ was not a combination of two persons, one human and one divine. That would be close to saying that He was simply a man to whom God was joined in a uniquely intimate way — a man specially indwelled by God, like one of the Old Testament prophets.

Instead, the Church declared, Christ is only one divine Person — the Second Person of the Trinity. This single Person took our human nature and joined it to His own divine nature, so that He possesses two natures (see Jn 1:1-3,14).

But those natures don’t constitute two different persons. Christ is not a committee. The two natures belong to one and the same Person, the divine Son of God. And those two natures, though not to be confused, cannot be separated.

In this light, the Church concluded not only that it is correct to call Mary the Mother of God, but that it is important to do so. Mary conceived and bore in her womb the one Person, Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh. If we deny that she is the Mother of God, then we are denying that her Son, Christ, is God, come down from heaven.

For this reason, Catholics today follow the ancients in calling Mary Theotokos, “the God-bearer,” the Mother of God. The apostolic witness is clear: As St. Paul put it succinctly, “God sent his Son, born of a woman” (Gal 4:4).

In 2008, Bishop Jean-Michel di Falco Leandri, the bishop of Gap in the French Alps, celebrated a special Mass to announce the Vatican’s approval of Marian apparitions in that diocese…

In 2008, Bishop Jean-Michel di Falco Leandri, the bishop of Gap in the French Alps, celebrated a special Mass to announce the Vatican’s approval of Marian apparitions in that diocese that occurred between 1664 and 1718.

Although the location of the apparitions to Venerable Benôite (Benedicta) Rencurel and the shrine founded there have been drawing pilgrims since the late 17th century, Our Lady of Laus is relatively unknown outside of France. The website for the shrine is available only in French and Italian, for example, and the nearest airport is in Grenoble, about 60 mountain miles away.

The shrine of Our Lady of Laus may be obscure to those outside the region, but her message of reconciliation, with its emphasis on repentance, the Sacrament of Penance and reparation for sins should be better known. Our Lady of Laus is known as the Refuge of Sinners. As she appeared to Benôite Rencurel for more than half a century, she repeated a call for holiness and devotion among the laity and for faithfulness among priests and religious. The Mother of God also promised miraculous healings for those anointed with holy oil if they had faith in her intercession.

Mary’s calls for repentance, warnings against unfaithfulness and scandal, and requests for a shrine to be built in Laus are all common attributes of the Marian apparitions recognized by the Church. Since they are private revelations, Catholics are not required to believe in them. Like other Marian apparitions — for example, at Rue de Bac in Paris (St. Catherine Labouré and the Miraculous Medal); La Sallette, also in the French Alps; and most famously at Lourdes (St. Bernadette Soubirous) — Our Lady of Laus offers guidance for devotion and personal holiness.

An Orphaned Shepherdess

Benôite Rencurel was an orphan, born on Sept. 16, 1657, in Saint-Etienne d’Avancon. After her father died when she was only 7 years old, she helped her family by serving as shepherdess for a neighbor. Benôite had not learned to read or write; her only source of education was the parish church and the sermons she heard at Mass.

In May 1664, she saw a beautiful lady holding a child in her arms and standing on a rock in the valley of Laus, where Benôite was guarding her neighbor’s flocks and praying the Rosary. Her simple response, offering to share the hard bread she had to eat after softening it in the nearby fountain, made the beautiful lady smile. Her desire to hold the little child made the lady smile again, but she left without saying a word.

Over the next four months, the beautiful lady, whose name Benôite did not know, returned daily to instruct her on her mission. Benôite told her neighbor about the lady, and the neighbor did not believe her. Following Benôite to the valley one day, she heard the lady — although she did not see her — warn Benôite that her neighbor was in spiritual danger: “She had something on her conscience” and needed to confess her sins and do penance, because she took the name of Our Lord in vain. Benôite’s neighbor took this message to heart and did penance for the rest of her life.

Statue of Mary and Benôite Photos: ND du Laus

Benôite finally asked the lady who she was. “My name is Mary,” she replied. Mary called on Benôite to pray for sinners and work for their conversion. She asked Benôite to meet her at a chapel in Laus which was to be used as a shrine. Once the diocese recognized the authenticity of the apparitions, the same chapel was replaced by a larger church, the present shrine church. The miraculous healings with the oil from the sanctuary lamps continued, drawing more and more pilgrims to Laus. (At the present time, more than 120,000 travel there yearly.)

Like all visionaries, Benôite knew suffering and misunderstanding. After all, she was a simple peasant instructing priests on how to welcome penitents with kindness and charity in the Sacrament of Penance to encourage them to confess their sins and repent. Benôite also urged young girls and older women to be modest, sometimes correcting their dress or behavior. She became a Third Order Dominican and received visions of Jesus in His passion from 1669 to 1679. Among these five visions, Jesus told her once, “My daughter, I show myself in this state so that you can participate in My passion.” Benôite mystically participated in the sufferings of Christ for 15 years, enduring great pain starting every Thursday evening and continuing until Saturday morning. On Christmas Day 1718, she received holy Communion; on the feast of the Holy Innocents, she went to confession, received extreme unction and died. Bishop di Falco Leandri, in addition to urging the Vatican approval of the apparitions — the first approval in this century and the first approved in France since Lourdes — has also supported the cause for Benôite’s canonization.

A piece published on Aleteia titled “The Presentation of Mary: Celebrating a Feast that Never Happened,” left me troubled. It is true though, scholars debate the authenticity of this Marian…

A piece published on Aleteia titled “The Presentation of Mary: Celebrating a Feast that Never Happened,” left me troubled. It is true though, scholars debate the authenticity of this Marian feast, which finds its origin in the apocryphal work The Protoevangelium of James. As a devotee of the Marian biographies published by Maximus the Confessor, Venerable Maria of Agreda and Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, I can affirm each gives an account of Mary’s presentation in the temple at the age of 3. Rather than dwelling on the historicity of today’s event, though, let’s lend our meditation to the feast itself — more specifically: Why do we celebrate Mary’s presentation? The answer is straightforward: The life of Mary provides an example for us, especially in our own spiritual lives. Christians can appropriate spiritual insights for ourselves from the feast of Mary’s Presentation.

The importance of pilgrimage

Tradition believes that Joachim and Anne were barren, and for that reason people of the biblical era would have viewed the couple with suspicion and looked down on them. Like any other couple hoping to conceive, Joachim and Anne prayed to God, asking for the blessing of a child. God heard their prayer, and they were grateful to Him. The story of Joachim and Anne like the Old Testament account of the barren Hannah, who begged God for a child and later gave birth to Samuel. Maximus the Confessor, draws out the similarity in his The Life of the Virgin, comparing the name Hannah and Anna. The Presentation of Mary reminds us of Hannah’s willingness to offer Samuel back to God because Joachim and Anne bring the child Mary to the temple in a similar fashion at the age of 3.

Joachim, Anne and Mary lived in Nazareth, meaning if they presented Mary in the temple they had to go on a pilgrimage. Many Catholics go on pilgrimage. 2017 was a popular year for pilgrimage because of the centennial anniversary of the Fatima apparitions. There are pilgrimage sites all over the world, including the Holy Land, Marian apparition sites and shrines to saints. A person might go on pilgrimage because of their fascination with a place or story of a saint, or to ask God for a special favor. The Presentation of Mary reminds us that we can go on a pilgrimage of thanksgiving, to give thanks to God for a blessing received. In their gratitude, Joachim and Anne pledged to dedicate Mary to God and give her to His service in the temple. To carry this out, it meant they had to make sacrifice and go on pilgrimage.

Mary’s choice for God

The Presentation of Mary also highlights the fact Mary chooses God at this point in her life, even if at such a young age. On Dec. 8 the Church celebrates Mary’s preservation from Original sin, called her Immaculate Conception. We could say that God chose Mary, as he foresaw the merits of Christ’s cross and applied them to Mary. But the Presentation allows Mary to exercise her free will and choose to live her life devoted to God. Mary’s choice lends us an example to follow. Each day is an opportunity for us to renew and recommit ourselves to the Lord’s service, just as she did in the temple.

Mary’s preparation for Advent

The biographies of Mary suggest Mary remained in the temple after her Presentation. This means she dedicated herself in service to the temple and to whatever tasks she was assigned. It was a time of spiritual formation. She heard the word of God proclaimed, including the prophecies that would be fulfilled through her. Perhaps hearing the story of Hannah and Samuel resonated with her as she would later make Hannah’s prayer her own in the Magnificat. She also would have spent much time in personal prayer, living in the presence of the Holy of Holies only to receive the All Holy One within her very being at the Annunciation. Catholics can look back and see Mary’s time in the temple, from the age of 3 to 12, as a time of advent and preparation. God called her to be there, and, in turn, she chose God. Because of this, God prepared her to receive the savior of the world. The celebration of Mary’s presentation in the temple is an anticipation of the Advent we commence around the time of this feast. Throughout the holy season of Advent, with Mary we can listen to the prophecies, watch and pray for the coming of the Dawn from on high.

The historical details of Mary’s presentation should not be our primary concern in celebrating her feast. The tradition of observing it reminds us that Mary lived her life for God, and we should too. She is the model of the Church, and in her life we find the example for how to live our own.

Non-Catholics who reject our Lady’s perpetual virginity use Matthew 1:24-25. In ordinary language, the phrase “knew her not until she had borne a son” would imply that she and Joseph had conjugal…

Non-Catholics who reject our Lady’s perpetual virginity use Matthew 1:24-25. In ordinary language, the phrase “knew her not until she had borne a son” would imply that she and Joseph had conjugal union after the birth of her Son. The Bible of the Virgin’s time (the Old Testament) sometimes uses the word “until” (and the word “to”) in a different sense. Here are some examples.

The raven that Noah set free “went forth and did not return until the waters were dried up upon the earth” (Gn 8:7, RSV). In fact, the raven never came back. In somewhat the same sense the Old Testament occasionally uses the preposition “to.” We read in 2 Samuel 6:23 that “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death” (RSV). Would your non-Catholic informant imply this means Michal had children after her death? Or what about Moses’ grave. Deuteronomy 34:6 reports that no one knows where Moses was buried “to this day.” Again, this does not imply someone would know the location after the time when the sacred writer wrote. The use of “until” and “to” only means an event did not occur up to a certain point.

You may read in 1 Maccabees the use of the word “before” with a similar meaning. After victory in battle, the Maccabean forces “went up to Mount Zion with gladness and joy, and offered burnt offerings, because not one of them had fallen before they returned in safety” (5:54, RSV). This clearly does not mean they were slain after they returned.

St. Luke, therefore, is not reporting or even implying that the Virgin and Joseph lived as husband and wife after she had borne her Son. St. Luke’s account of the Visitation makes this even clearer. When the angel Gabriel told the Blessed Virgin she was to bear a son, she was astonished. She asked, literally, “how can this be since I do know not man?” (1:34). The Old Testament commonly speaks of sexual union as a man and woman “knowing” one another. (Among other instances, Genesis 4:1 [RSV] records, “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain….”)

Ordinarily, a young woman engaged at this time, soon to be married, would not be surprised at being told she would give birth in the future. Why was Mary obviously amazed? Because she had vowed perpetual virginity within the bounds of her approaching marriage. This has always been the Church’s understanding of her consternation. Non-Catholics sometimes argue that a virginal marriage (known technically as a “Josephite” marriage) is “unnatural.” That may be true, but it’s no argument against there being such a marriage. It was “unnatural” for a virgin to bear a Son. And it was certainly “unnatural” for a couple to raise a child who was God in the flesh.

Another argument used by non-Catholics is taken from St. Luke’s reference to Our Lord as the Virgin’s “first-born son” (2:7). Among the Israelites, a woman’s first son was always called “first-born,” even though she later may have had no more sons. In the Old Testament the term “first-born son” primarily connoted the bearer of special privileges and rights in the family. An appendix to the Catholic version of the RSV explains that the term does not necessarily mean the first of several. “The word is used even in modern times without necessarily implying subsequent births.”

Finally, in Matthew 12:46 and Mark 6:3, we read about “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus. Non-Catholics assume this refers to children of the Virgin and St. Joseph. But the Greek and Hebrew words for “brother” and “sister” are ambiguous terms. Sometimes they refer to an ally (as in Dt 2:37). At other times “brother” means a friend (see 2 Sm 1:26). Christ’s Church has always taught that that the meaning of “brother” or “sister” as it pertains to Jesus refers to relatives or friends, never blood brother or blood sister.

There is something about Mary that drives many fundamentalists and some evangelicals nuts. Of course, they will insist Mary doesn’t bother them, but they claim the “fact” that Catholics exalt…

There is something about Mary that drives many fundamentalists and some evangelicals nuts.

Of course, they will insist Mary doesn’t bother them, but they claim the “fact” that Catholics exalt her so much she is apparently worshipped, or even — as you can read in the most extreme anti-Catholic literature — promoted to the fourth person of the Trinity. When I was a fundamentalist, I knew that Catholics worshipped Mary. Why else did they have statues of her, pray the Rosary to her and call her the “Mother of God”? Didn’t they know that God has no mother? How ridiculous!

It is hard to overstate the reactionary stance of fundamentalists toward any positive teaching about Mary. For example, in my years attending a small fundamentalist “Bible chapel” as a boy, I recall at least three sermons praising Rahab the harlot (see Jos 2 and 6:17-25), but just one about Mary, the mother of Jesus. And in that sermon, Mary was described as a “good mother” (true, of course) who was no different than anyone else.

A close relative once described the Blessed Mother as “a biological vessel” used by God — the sort of remark that would be rightly considered insulting if directed to any other mother. And a close friend from my Bible college days asked me, upon learning that I was becoming Catholic (in 1997), “But what are you going to do about having to worship Mary?”

What exists, then, is a double-pronged problem: Fundamentalists hold to a very lacking, even insulting, view of Mary because they have a deeply distorted understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches and believes about Mary. Their doctrine is almost completely negative in character, shaped in reactionary fear rather than in receptive faith.

If that sounds unduly harsh, consider that fundamentalists are loathe to admit that Mary is indeed the Mother of God. This is an essential point in addressing the accusation that Catholics “worship” Mary. Simply put, if a person refuses to admit the truth about Mary being Theotokos (“God bearer,” or Mother of God), he will not understand authentic Catholic devotion to Mary. James McCarthy, a former Catholic who operates a ministry meant to “save” Catholics, writes in “The Gospel According to Rome” (Harvest House, 1995) that “the Bible . . . never calls Mary the Mother of God for a very simple reason: God has no mother. As someone has rightly said, just as Christ’s human nature had no father, so His divine nature had no mother. This Bible, therefore, rightly calls Mary the ‘mother of Jesus’ (John 2:1; Acts 1:14) but never the Mother of God.” Like Nestorius (d. 451), who made the same basic error in the fifth century, McCarthy overlooks that mothers do not give birth to natures, but to persons. Jesus Christ has two natures, but he is one Person. While Jesus’ human nature comes from Mary and His divine nature from the Father (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 503), he is not partially divine and partially human, as McCarthy’s statement implies.

Fundamentalists claim they believe that Jesus is one person, true God and true man. But they fail to reach logical conclusions fixed upon that foundational fact. Prior to the Incarnation, God not only didn’t have a mother, He also never wore clothing, ate food, took naps or went fishing! But the Incarnation, the central event in salvation history, radically changed the relationship between God and man precisely because God became man — and He did so by being born of the Virgin Mary. Every devotion shown to Mary by Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox) is based in the belief she is the Mother of God. But this devotion is not worship; that is for God alone. Besides, if Jesus loves His mother — and we know He does — shouldn’t we also express the same sort of familial love?